KHAN IMRAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

KHAN IMRAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Although the Director accepted a significant change of circumstances, he properly concluded under s.37ZO that when that change is taken together with the material previously submitted and previous findings, the subsequent claim had no realistic prospect of success because the risk was a private dispute susceptible...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1479
Parties
Applicant: Khan Imran; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 June 2024
Case Number
HCAL554/2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S.37 ZO, Unified Screening Mechanism, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Leave for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S.37 ZO Unified Screening Mechanism Internal Relocation State Protection +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Imran

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director correctly applied s.37ZO to refuse permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether there was a significant change of circumstances since the previous final determination
  3. 3 Whether the change coupled with previous material gave the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Director accepted a significant change of circumstances, he properly concluded under s.37ZO that when that change is taken together with the material previously submitted and previous findings, the subsequent claim had no realistic prospect of success because the risk was a private dispute susceptible to state protection and internal relocation; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and leave to apply for judicial review was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave refused
  • Application dismissed